It has a real “where the wild things are” feel…which is the art used to decorate my local library.
A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother—-including Peter Jackson—-and have missed out on the absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing.
The Hobbit does a wonderful job of introducing the ideas and characters of LotR in a way which is accessible for children and I think the art presented here is a valid artistic take on a children’s book about a dragon.
"absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing"
There is the bed-jumping scene, so there is childishness in the movies too. (I also hated that scene; I started to root for Sauron when I saw that scene.)
Apropos rooting for Sauron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
> A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother
Do you refer to the LOTR trilogy as The Hobbit's older brother here? I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?
> I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?
Yes: But the Hobbit is much shorter and is a much easier read. It also was edited after LOTR was published to fix some minor plot holes.
WRT the movies: Peter Jackson added a lot to the "Hobbit" trilogy that wasn't in the book, such as the whole story arc about Gandalf when he wasn't with the dwarves, or the other wizards. The book isn't the epic that the movie makes it out to be.
Obviously true, but LOTR is also obviously more mature than The Hobbit, which I think was OP's point.
It’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking.
If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”)
If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.
Tolkien and Jansson shared one thing: people did translations of their work which they totally hated
So it's sort-of funny that she wound up pissing him off with artwork which didn't fit his mental model, when they both experienced people trying to do the translation and failing to hit the mark.
(I think I read this of both of them, in respective biographies)
"I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size"
Well, he was a hobbit once, right? So a 10 meters tall Gollum makes less sense than a Gollum that has about the same size as other hobbits, give or take.
But that's only known if you read other material, it's not in The Hobbit.
- [deleted]
That's a retcon. There was no indication that he was a hobbit in The Hobbit (and as others have mentioned, in the original there was no physical description at all.)
https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.
Neither the "before" nor "after" here have "small slimy"
Yeah it's entirely possible the version that I have that is supposed to be from 1937 was tainted with later versions despite it not containing any of the more well known 1951 changes. That is maybe someone reconstructed it by taking a 1966 copy and undoing the changes, but forgot about the small slimy creature change.
But apparently there were dozens of different versions that actually ended up in print that had different amounts of the changes caused by some printers mixing old plates and new. So it's entirely possible that small slimy appeared in some versions around 1951 but not others and that's what that page is working off of.
"a small slimy creature" was added after this picture was drawn, in the 1966 edition.
Other languages adaptions had larger gollum's also - see some at e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_196...
(It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it online)
That’s not correct as far as I can tell. I found a 1937 version complete with the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring” and small slimy creature was there.
https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
> If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.
Should Aragorn wear pants in the illustrations?
Aragorn isn't in The Hobbit.
> (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”)
This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken.
http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf
Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was."
Mind explaining the source of your mistake?
Also (referencing a side comment) the only mention of the size of Gollum's boat in that PDF (and it may not even be his boat - I'm not an expert on the source material, just going off mentions of "boat" near "Gollum") seems to be "little black boat" but that's pretty quickly followed by it fitting 4 people at a time which isn't all that "little", really, and I think the large Gollum in the illustration could fit in a 4 person boat (albeit in a perhaps top-heavy fashion.)
Hats off for going to the Primary Source!
It’s not a primary source is a scan of a 2016 reprint that I can’t find much information on. And I she a version that purports to be the 1937 edition which does have the small slimy creature line.
https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
That version has the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring if he wins”.
https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
The version you linked is a 2016 reprint, so I’m actually not sure which one is correct.
The version I linked to still has Gollum offering to give Bilbo the ring so it certainly predates the modern version I have. And that is the change Tolkien explicitly states he made.
The version I linked has this "If it asks us, and we doesn't answer, we gives it a present, gollum!" Which I'm positive is only in the 1937 version. From what I can tell there were also minor corrections made before the 1951 changes, so I suppose it's possible that adding small slimy creature was one of those.
There are also reported to be dozens of different versions after 1951 caused by printers mixing and matching old and revised plates. I'm unsure exactly how that 1937 facsimile was recreated, or how the version I linked was created. One or both could have been taken from this mismatched versions.
I think the only way to be sure would be to buy a reprint from before 1951 or to find a scan of one online.
I see. This is a weird situation, then, and I apologize if I was abrasive.
Searching online ("Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know") there are many hits for the line without "small and slimy creature." I assume it to be part of some legitimate edition, and I find it hard to believe this clarification would have been removed between editions, so with some confidence I conclude the original version did not have "small and slimy creature." Still, I understand your POV and appreciate your patience explaining it.
No worries. I wasn’t offended. Just surprised because I knew I had double checked.
Oh yeah I think it’s likely the very first version didn’t have it. But I’m much less sure about when it could have first popped up. I think it’s highly likely it showed up before the Swedish version. But I’m not very confident. Also it’s possible that the version Jansson was working from didn’t have it, even if a version of it with that text existed at the time.
[dead]
Why rude?
The comment it's replying to stated that 1937 quote as if they had checked it. That deception seems ruder to me the language in the comment you're talking about. But I do agree the last sentence could've been omitted while getting the core point across (but we're all only human).
https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
I did.
The version you posted is a 2016 reprint, I’m unsure which is correct.
Fair enough! (BTW I didn't post any version but your point stands.)
Also worth pointing out that I didn’t find the original correction rude unless there was an earlier version of the comment I didn’t see ;)
Not rude, just direct.
Nope, it’s rude and abrasive
Agree that the post comes across as rude in tone, but it’s never explicitly disparaging. Might just be an overly direct tone (non-native English speaker, or maybe on the spectrum?)
Nah just sounds like people can't handle what they say being questioned as per usual. We should never take offense to being asked to clarify or explain when someone thinks we're wrong.
I'd only be vaguely offended if they had no grounded reason to think that I'm wrong (and they'd be calling me out for the sake of calling me out).
Communicating ideas is a part of tribalism too. Good brain chemicals when the tribe agrees and bad brain chemicals when they disagree.
Yeah, my bad, after re-reading the original post. It was not particularly rude.
Apologies.
